alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1956

FELICIA A. UNDERDUE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cv-00653-RJC)

Submitted: February 23, 2021 Decided: February 25, 2021

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Felicia A. Underdue, Appellant Pro Se. Tory Ian Summey, Keith Michael Weddington, 

PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Felicia A. Underdue appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for 

immediate reinstatement of her employment, motion for employment records, and motion 

to compel. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); 

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The district court 

properly construed Underdue’s motion for reinstatement of employment as a motion for a 

preliminary injunction, the denial of which is immediately appealable. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292(a)(1). We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

Underdue’s motion for a preliminary injunction and affirm that portion of the district 

court’s order. See Roe v. Dep’t of Def., 947 F.3d 207, 219 (4th Cir. 2020) (stating standard). 

The district court’s decision to deny Underdue’s discovery-related motions, however, is 

not immediately appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss the portion of Underdue’s appeal 

challenging the denial of those motions for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Underdue’s 

motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the resolution of this appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED IN PART,

DISMISSED IN PART
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          71,759
<SECURITIES>                                     1,233
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,359
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,955
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               127,892
<PP&E>                                         283,808
<DEPRECIATION>                                (27,743)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 405,051
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          122,422
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           614
<OTHER-SE>                                     289,154
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   405,051
<SALES>                                         62,158
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                62,158
<CGS>                                           48,528
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   83,751
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   176
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 947
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (20,724)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (20,724)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,724)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.39)


</TABLE>
No. 10-470.

#### Lawrence Ruston, et ux., Petitioners v. Town Board for the Town of Skaneateles, et al.

562 U.S. 1108, 131 S. Ct. 824,

178 L. Ed. 2d 556,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9731.

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Same case below, 610 F.3d 55.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 131 (Thursday, July 9, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 37090]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18236]



[[Page 37090]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 98-105; RM-9295]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Madison, IN

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making 
filed on behalf of Madison Broadcasting Company, seeking the allotment 
of Channel 266A to Madison, Indiana, as that community's second local 
FM transmission service. Coordinates used for this proposal are 38-49-
15 and 85-18-46.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before August 24, 1998, and reply 
comments on or before September 8, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 
20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties 
should serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: Mark N. Lipp, Esq., 
Shook, Hardy & Bacon, 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 600, 
Washington, DC 20004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 98-105, adopted June 24, 
1998, and released July 2, 1998. The full text of this Commission 
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., 
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20036, (202) 857-3800.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
See 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 98-18236 Filed 7-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 135 (Wednesday, July 15, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 38147]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18912]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 1998 / 
Notices

[[Page 38147]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Office of the Secretary


Approval of Silos and Smokestacks Partnership Management Plan

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act 
of 1996, the Secretary of Agriculture hereby gives notice of approval 
of the Partnership Management Plan submitted for establishment of the 
America's Agricultural Heritage Partnership.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bart Chilton (202-720-4581), Senior 
Policy Director, Rural Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Room 206-W, Jamie L. Whitten Federal Building, 1400 Independence 
Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Omnibus Parks and Public Lands 
Management Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-333) authorized the establishment 
of the America's Agricultural Heritage Partnership (Partnership) in 
Iowa upon publication of notice in the Federal Register that a 
Partnership Management Plan has been submitted to and approved by the 
Secretary of Agriculture. Silos and Smokestacks is a non-profit 
regional agricultural heritage tourism organization based in Iowa that 
is creating a network of sites, activities, and events to tell the 
story of American agriculture, past and present. Silos and Smokestacks 
has developed and submitted a management plan to the Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) for the Partnership. Approval of the management plan 
by the Secretary does not obligate USDA to expend resources. Consistent 
with USDA's rural development mission and support for agricultural 
heritage tourism as a viable economic development tool, the Secretary 
of Agriculture has approved the America's Agricultural Heritage 
Partnership plan.

    Dated: July 8, 1998.
Dan Glickman,
Secretary of Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 98-18912 Filed 7-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-07-U
No. 10-5960.

#### Thomas F. Campanile, Jr., Petitioner v. Phyllis Campanile Nicolella, as Executor of the Estate of Carolyn H. Renzi, Deceased.

562 U.S. 1173, 131 S. Ct. 986,

178 L. Ed. 2d 815,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 515.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 984, 131 S. Ct. 420, 178 L. Ed. 2d 328, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8153.
No. 10-1318.

#### Stephen Lingis, et al., Petitioners v. Rick Dorazil, et al.

565 U.S. 816, 132 S. Ct. 96,

181 L. Ed. 2d 25,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6964.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 633 F.3d 552.
*DLM 4000.25, Volume 6, May 28, 2014*

*Change 4*

# APPENDIX 1

**RESERVED**

AP1-1					APPENDIX 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court Cause No. DA 24-0395

__________________________________________________________________

JAWBONE HOLDINGS, LLC,

Petitioner/Appellant

v.

THE MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE 

REGULATION, MONTANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

Respondent/Cross-Appellant

and 

NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION d/b/a NORTHWESTERN ENERGY,

Respondent/Appellee

and

THE MONTANA CONSUMER COUNSEL,

Respondent-Intervenor/Appellee

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS 

This matter comes before the Court on Appellant Jawbone Holdings, LLC’s 

Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Appeal, filed August 21, 2024. 

Respondents/Appellees Montana Public Service Commission, NorthWestern

Energy and the Montana Consumer Counsel do not object to the Motion. Upon 

consideration of the Motion and good cause appearing,

08/21/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0395
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal in the above matter is hereby 

DISMISSED with prejudice, and the docket closed. 

Dated this ____ day of August, 2024. 

________________________

Honorable Justice 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 21 2024
# C_2015429EN.01000501.xml

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Freistaat Bayern v Verlag Esterbauer GmbH

(Case C-490/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Legal protection of databases - Directive 96/9/EC - Article 1(2) - Scope - Databases - Topographic maps - Independence of materials constituting a database - Possibility of separating those materials without affecting the value of their informative content - Account taken of the purpose of a topographic map for the user))

(2015/C 429/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Freistaat Bayern

Applicant:

Defendant: Verlag Esterbauer GmbH

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases must be interpreted as meaning that geographical information extracted from a topographic map by a third party so that that information may be used to produce and market another map retains, following its extraction, sufficient informative value to be classified as ‘independent materials’ of a ‘database’ within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.

1

---
H. R. 2969 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1401 1st 

Street North in Winter Haven, Florida, as the ‘‘Althea Margaret Daily Mills 

Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. ALTHEA MARGARET DAILY MILLS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 1401 1st Street North in Winter Haven, Florida, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Althea Margaret Daily 

Mills Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Althea Margaret Daily Mills Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
EXHIBIT 32.1
           Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18
             U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
                        of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection  with this annual report of Espey Mfg. &  Electronics  Corp.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the period  ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"),  I, Howard
Pinsley, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

         1.       The report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2.       The information  contained in this report fairly presents,  in
                  all material respects,  the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

Date: September 8, 2008


                                                   /s/Howard Pinsley
                                                   ------------------------
                                                   Howard Pinsley
                                                   President and
                                                   Chief Executive Officer


                                       34
No. 10-10368.

#### Victor Y. Batshever, Petitioner v. Jafar Jafar, et al.

565 U.S. 835, 132 S. Ct. 138,

181 L. Ed. 2d 57,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5355,

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Second Judicial Department, denied.

Same case below, 73 App. Div. 3d 1108, 900 N.Y.S.2d 887.
MHHIICTEPCTBO TPAHCITOPTA 

POCCHHCKOH <PE,.!J;EPAU,HH 

~E~EPA~LHOEArEHTCTBO 

B03.JlYlliHOrO TPAHCOOPTA 

Our ref 

Ham N2 

s. 0.1 - ~f--7/ 

·-

Dear Mr. Gretch, 

-- .· : ·~ 

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT 

OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 

FEDERAL 

AIR TRANSPORT AGENCY 

Date 

)laTa 

Mr. PaulL. Gretch c2Pl. /~ -i"l 

Director, Office of International Aviation 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Aviation and International Affairs 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

400 7'h Street, S. W., Room 6402 

Washington DC, 20590 

In connection with the U.S. Department of Transportation requirements 

related to foreign air carriers operation of charter flights the Federal Air Transport 

Agency ofthe Russian Federation would like to inform you of the following. 

Taking into account the type of fifth-freedom operations conducted by 

Russian cargo carriers to/from the US, the Federal Air Transport Agency of the 

Russian Federation is ready to accord reciprocal treatment to similar U.S. carrier 

requests for fifth-freedom authority to transport outsized cargo (as currently 

defined by DOT) to/from Russia. 

With kind regards, 

Deputy Head 

Pocclliit:KBH C))e.llepauHJI 

Jlenuurpa.r.cKHii npocne1n, Jl, 37, MocKaa, 

rcn-:\ 125993, TeJieTaiin: 111495 

TeJI.: (+7 499) 23l-53-9S, ljta~~:c: (+7 499) 231-55-35 

E-mail: rusavia@scaa.ru 

37, Leningrad:sky prospect, 125993, 

Moscow, Russian Federatlon, Teletype: 111495 

Tel.: (+7 499) 231-53-95, fax: (+7 499) 231-55-35 

E-mail: rusavia@scaa.ru
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 97-40947

_____________________ SUSAN WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

versus
CITY OF PLANO, TEXAS,

Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

_______________________________________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

_______________________________________________________ January 7, 1999

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded this case

to our court for further consideration in the light of Faragher v. City of Boca Raton , 524 U.S. ___, 118 S. Ct. 2275 (1998), and
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth , 524 U.S. ___, 118 S. Ct.

2257 (1998). Concluding, in the light of those cases, that this

case presents issues that the par ties should be permitted to develop further, including through additional discovery and supplemented motions for summary judgment, but without in any way- 2 -

intimating our view as to the merits of the claims by Susan Wilson,
this case is REMANDED to the dis trict court for further proceedings.

REMANDED
wdka_ex106.htm


EXHIBIT 10.6


 


WARRANT TERMINATION AGREEMENT


 


This Warrant Termination Agreement (this “Agreement”) dated as of June 11, 2014 is entered into by and between James Dale (“Holder”) and Panache Beverage, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). Reference is made to that certain Restructuring Agreement dated as of the date hereof by and among the Company, Holder, Consilium Corporate Recovery Master Fund, Ltd. (“Consilium”), and certain other parties thereto (the “Restructuring Agreement”), pursuant to which Holder and the Company have agreed that the Warrant (as defined below) shall be surrendered to the Company and terminated and cancelled. Capitalized terms used and not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Restructuring Agreement.


 


The undersigned hereby acknowledges and agrees that:


 


1. Holder is the holder of a warrant, dated as of December 21, 2012, which entitles the holder to purchase 600,000 shares of the common stock of the Company (the “Warrant”).


 


2. As a condition to their willingness to enter into the Restructuring Agreement, Consilium and the Company have requested that Holder, and in order to induce Consilium and the Company to enter into the Restructuring Agreement, Holder has agreed to, enter into this Agreement.


 


3. On the Effective Date and without any further action on the part of Holder, the Warrant will be cancelled.


 


4. The parties will, from time to time, execute and deliver, or cause to be executed and delivered, such additional documents or take, or cause to be taken, such additional acts as may be necessary to give full effect to the terms and intent of this Agreement.


 


5. The parties hereto may only modify or amend this Agreement by a written agreement executed and delivered by duly authorized signatories of the respective parties with the consent of Consilium which expressly states that it is intended to modify or amend this Agreement.


 


6. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware, without giving effect to any choice or conflict of laws provision or rule (whether of the State of Delaware or any other jurisdiction) that would cause the application of the laws of any jurisdiction other than the State of Delaware.


 


7. This Agreement, together with the Restructuring Agreement and the Warrant, constitutes the entire agreement and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, both written and oral, among the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof.


 


8. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, all of which shall together be considered one and the same agreement.


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 




  





1











  




 




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this Agreement as of the day and year first above written.


 




	
 

	
By: 

	/s/ JAMES DALE 	 
	 	Name:	James Dale	 







 




	 	PANACHE BEVERAGE, INC.	 
	 	 	 	 
	
 

	
By: 

	/s/ MICHAEL ROMER	 
	 	Name:	Michael Romer	 
	 	Title:	Interim CEO	 





 





[Warrant Termination Agreement (James Dale)]




 


 


2